The Three Types of Musicians I’ve Encountered (and Why It Matters to Recognize Them)

In my experience as a musician, I’ve always wanted to talk about something that many professionals tend to avoid: we are not all the same type of musicians. What I find even more fascinating, through my own discoveries, is that despite our differences — genres, styles, schools — we often fall into three broad categories. This classification isn’t meant to label or limit anyone, but rather to highlight three distinct ways of understanding and organizing music that I’ve consistently observed in music schools.

1. The Classical Interpreter type

The first type is the musician rooted in the Western classical tradition. These are the performers who dedicate years to mastering complex pieces, often committing them to memory and refining their technique and expression to the highest level. They develop an exceptional sensitivity to understand and convey the musical ideas of historical composers.

This kind of musician trains to read and interpret scores with maximum precision and emotion. Some also compose or improvise, but those skills are often secondary. Their true strength lies in interpretation — in breathing new life into works that already exist.

2. The Academic Improviser

The second type is the academic improviser — someone who devotes their study and practice to improvisation within a structured language, such as jazz. Their training focuses heavily on ear development, listening, and the creative manipulation of melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic patterns.

These musicians study and absorb musical vocabulary — lines, progressions, motifs — and are expected to combine them creatively while respecting the stylistic framework. In jazz, for instance, if a musician hasn’t internalized the language and phrasing developed by previous generations, they’re often seen as not fully fluent in the genre or even not a fluent improviser.

Academic improvisation is a sophisticated art form that blends technical discipline with expressive freedom — but always within an established stylistic boundary.

3. The Creative Musician (and the Hardest to Classify)

The third type is the creative musician — arguably the hardest to define and the most controversial. These artists might be composers, multi-genre performers, or sound experimenters. They often haven’t followed a formal music education, or they’ve learned in non-traditional ways.

This kind of musician gathers musical influences — classical, contemporary, folk, or popular — and fuses them into a deeply personal language. Their creative process doesn’t fit into the boxes of classical composition or academic improvisation. As a result, they often face criticism or confusion because they don’t match existing labels.

This group also includes film composers or singer-songwriters who carve out original paths. Ironically, they’re frequently criticized for not using “refined” musical structures, even though their originality lies in precisely that — rejecting formulas in favor of emotional impact and personal and intimate expression.

I wanted to write this piece because, in today’s musical landscape, these distinctions are becoming increasingly relevant.

Especially for those who want to pursue music but don’t see themselves reflected in traditional categories.

This isn’t about ranking one type of musician over another — it’s about broadening the spectrum. Recognizing that there are many valid ways to be a musician, each requiring talent, dedication, and a deep connection to art.What we need is a more generous outlook — one that allows each musician to find their own voice and craft, without feeling pressured to fit into someone else’s mold.